If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Do you think the objectives of keeping down the bottom line and winning are mutually incompatible? Clubs like the Cards, Giants and Rays seem to have done a pretty good job of balancing the two.

I disagree. (respectfully) This off season will be interesting. Next off season will be telling.

Unless you believe, as some here do, that the limited resources story is all a bunch of bull, you have to accept that they will not be doing any heavy lifting this off season. They will be filling the holes the best way they can, but with affordable players. Next year, with Johan off the books and with the ability to increase payroll some, we will need to see how they go about adding strategic pieces.

Certainly you have to spend according to your means. And as we saw throughout the Wilpons leadership, spending was never a means to winning.

I honestly do not believe the Wilpons will ever have the means to spend as a big market team should spend.

Maybe I erred when I said the objective was to keep the bottom line low. The objective might just to be avoid losing the team due to financial ruin. And to do that, they have to operate the team on as little as payroll as possible.

See, if they can't afford to extend Wright and Dickey now, what makes you think they'll ever be able to afford a big ticket player?

On the other hand, if they can keep dealing players as they become more expensive in exchange for younger ones, they can keep payroll down and keep running the team.

"Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears – but they seem kinda sensible...."

Winning was never their top priority, look at ****** field, total and utter contempt for the Mets and their history.

They spent money to get a park built, that's all it ever was.

They cut capacity so they could charge more for tickets....

Wake up people, stop buying into this myth that they spent to win, IMO they didn't spend over the top anyway, they always had one of the top 5 revenues in the games to do so. They spent in line with being a NY team, they never out the team OTT.

Stop regurgitating this myth that the Wilpon's really spent, they didn't.

"You don't know how to drink. Your whole generation, you drink for the wrong reasons. My generation, we drink because it's good, because it feels better than unbuttoning your collar, because we deserve it. We drink because it's what men do."

Winning was never their top priority, look at ****** field, total and utter contempt for the Mets and their history.

They spent money to get a park built, that's all it ever was.

They cut capacity so they could charge more for tickets....

Wake up people, stop buying into this myth that they spent to win, IMO they didn't spend over the top anyway, they always had one of the top 5 revenues in the games to do so. They spent in line with being a NY team, they never out the team OTT.

Stop regurgitating this myth that the Wilpon's really spent, they didn't.

McFly, at least try to pretend to be objective. When a team over the course of two off seasons goes out and buys Carlos Beltran, Billy Wagner, Paul LoDuca, and Carlos Delgado because they had holes in the outfield, closer, catcher, and first base, don't say they weren't trying to win.

It just makes you sound foolish.

"Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears – but they seem kinda sensible...."

McFly, at least try to pretend to be objective. When a team over the course of two off seasons goes out and buys Carlos Beltran, Billy Wagner, Paul LoDuca, and Carlos Delgado because they had holes in the outfield, closer, catcher, and first base, don't say they weren't trying to win.

It just makes you sound foolish.

A few FA signings do not massage the real motives, yes they spent, but they had a ballpark to build, of course they were hoping to win, but they'd only ever go so far.

And they had the revenue to sign those players, they had a TV station etc

I have made this point a billion times and no-one seems to get it YES THEY SPENT YES THEY SPENT YES THEY SPENT

BUT - only in line with revenue, they DID NOT go OTT, they funded a NY baseball team, which they're incapable of doing now, but they failed to improve the team at every deadline when the team was either in front or close.

People can call me foolish as much as they want, but I did not need two years to see through Spindy Alderson...

I'll stick to my guns and I will keep making my argument, and I think the high payroll numbers over that span are not the whole truth, they need context, and while we're at it, they cut corners in the draft...

A few FA signings do not massage the real motives, yes they spent, but they had a ballpark to build, of course they were hoping to win, but they'd only ever go so far.

And they had the revenue to sign those players, they had a TV station etc

I have made this point a billion times and no-one seems to get it YES THEY SPENT YES THEY SPENT YES THEY SPENT

BUT - only in line with revenue, they DID NOT go OTT, they funded a NY baseball team, which they're incapable of doing now, but they failed to improve the team at every deadline when the team was either in front or close.

People can call me foolish as much as they want, but I did not need two years to see through Spindy Alderson...

I'll stick to my guns and I will keep making my argument, and I think the high payroll numbers over that span are not the whole truth, they need context, and while we're at it, they cut corners in the draft...

You're playing a really dumb game of semantics dude. If you want to say they spent money so they could buy a TV station and a ball park that's fine.

So what you're saying is they felt that the best way they could obtain those things is by putting together a winning team.

How is that not wanting to win?

It would be like saying I really didn't want a promotion at work. I really only wanted to buy a house after I got the promotion. Do you see where your logic fails?

"Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears – but they seem kinda sensible...."

You're playing a really dumb game of semantics dude. If you want to say they spent money so they could buy a TV station and a ball park that's fine.

So what you're saying is they felt that the best way they could obtain those things is by putting together a winning team.

How is that not wanting to win?

It would be like saying I really didn't want a promotion at work. I really only wanted to buy a house after I got the promotion. Do you see where your logic fails?

No, I'm not playing a game. The opportunities were there for them to spend a little extra at the deadline, or in the off season, and they did not do so, because they thought 'We don't to spend x more to win, we've already spent y'.

Tell me how wanting to win and not spending in the draft are compatible?

If they really wanted to win, why not improve the team after '06 instead of letting two stud relievers go?

Why didn't they improve the team at any of the deadlines over the 4-5 year span when if we weren't in first, then we were at least relevant? or close?

To me they were people who spent x to get back y, and that's it. Without help they probably had their 'meaningful games in September' anyway over those years, I'm pretty sure that's their thought process, if you look at the Mets under the regime, how many times have they spent significant money after April?

No, I'm not playing a game. The opportunities were there for them to spend a little extra at the deadline, or in the off season, and they did not do so, because they thought 'We don't to spend x more to win, we've already spent y'.

Tell me how wanting to win and not spending in the draft are compatible?

If they really wanted to win, why not improve the team after '06 instead of letting two stud relievers go?

Why didn't they improve the team at any of the deadlines over the 4-5 year span when if we weren't in first, then we were at least relevant? or close?

To me they were people who spent x to get back y, and that's it. Without help they probably had their 'meaningful games in September' anyway over those years, I'm pretty sure that's their thought process, if you look at the Mets under the regime, how many times have they spent significant money after April?

Now they can't even spend x.

Tell me how bringing in four very expensive front line players in two years (5 really if you include Pedro) is not compatible to winning?

"Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears – but they seem kinda sensible...."

Certainly you have to spend according to your means. And as we saw throughout the Wilpons leadership, spending was never a means to winning.

I honestly do not believe the Wilpons will ever have the means to spend as a big market team should spend.

Maybe I erred when I said the objective was to keep the bottom line low. The objective might just to be avoid losing the team due to financial ruin. And to do that, they have to operate the team on as little as payroll as possible.

See, if they can't afford to extend Wright and Dickey now, what makes you think they'll ever be able to afford a big ticket player?

On the other hand, if they can keep dealing players as they become more expensive in exchange for younger ones, they can keep payroll down and keep running the team.

After two straight late season collapses, followed by seasons of poor performance, attendance steadily dropped and, having spent big to address those problems (unsuccessfully, I might add) their payroll grew to where it outstripped a shrinking revenue. Hence the need to keep the bottom line low in order to keep the team. But that shouldn't be a permanent condition.

We'll have to wait and see if they can't afford to extend Wright and Dickey. But regardless of whether they do or don't, they have a plan to get to the point where they can once again be in the market for the top free agents. By drafting smart and attempting to acquire young players in trade, they can build a winning team again. They should be much more competitive in 2014. With winning, attendance should grow and revenue sgould outstrip payroll, giving them the means to afford big ticket players once again.

Now, McFly will tell you that they didn't spend on big ticket players (despite the examples of Pedro, Beltran, Delgado, Wagner, Santana, K-Rod, Putz, Bay . . . all brought in to address specific needs with the object of returning the team to its winning ways) and then he'll tell you that they didn't spend on those players in order to win . .they just wanted to milk the money that they thought a winning team would generate for them. What a load of K-Rapp.

After two straight late season collapses, followed by seasons of poor performance, attendance steadily dropped and, having spent big to address those problems (unsuccessfully, I might add) their payroll grew to where it outstripped a shrinking revenue. Hence the need to keep the bottom line low in order to keep the team. But that shouldn't be a permanent condition.

This type of delusional nonsense really bothers me. Can we stop acting as if the payroll is low due to low revenue? The reason the revenue is down is because the Wilpons lost a ton of money when the Madoff arrest was made, and they have yet to bounce back.

If they really wanted to win, why not improve the team after '06 instead of letting two stud relievers go?

Why didn't they improve the team at any of the deadlines over the 4-5 year span when if we weren't in first, then we were at least relevant? or close?

You could say because they already had what most experts called the best team in the NL, that most writers picked to go to the WS in '07. But they still brought in Moises Alou during the off season, who just hit .341 in '07. And they let Bradford go because they didn't want to give a reliever a 3 year contract. The bull pen was supposed to be one of their strengths.

In '06 at the deadline, they traded for Shawn Green in an effort to strengthen an already strong team. But I guess you'll find a reason to pooh-pooh that too.